CPS-0020? | Governance Stakeholder Incentivization

[Seomon4u]

This is a request to add CPS for community discussion on DRep Incentivization

---

(rendered document in branch)

[rphair]

Tagging this Triage to introduce at next CIP meeting (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/107) - @Seomon4u you & co-authors are welcome to attend & introduce it yourself, though it's not a detailed review.

Please familiarise yourself (if not already) and perhaps comment on this new CIP submission for potential impact on your problem statement:

• CIP-0149? | Optional DRep Compensation #991

Note also there is no guarantee of this getting CPS number 19 - even if it seemed likely it would be accepted as a CPS candidate soon, we would still ask you not to use a number at this stage.

[rphair]

p.s. there is no Governance category yet so I'm tentatively suggesting this be marked as Tools ... the alternative would be if you were proposing changes to the Ledger (generally ruled a bad idea for this application in the related CIP linked in my last review).

If you are suggesting off-chain compensation or any other organisational / social process, this is not admissible on the CIP repository at all. For current plans to formalise this in the pending (not yet valid) Governance category, please see:

• New Category: Governance #937 (comment)

[Ryun1]

Thanks @Seomon4u
nice problem statement, eager to see it develop

one highlevel suggestion

• Would it be worth extending the scope of this to 'governance incentization' and covering all actors within the governance design - CC, DReps and ada holders?

[rphair]

@Seomon4u p.s. to #997 (review) - please ASAP rename the directory to something without the number 19 (or any other number; currently CPS-019). It's important to do this before there is review or community references to these files... definitely before the upcoming CIP meeting.

One suggestion from CIP-0001 is to use a semantic name for the directory (e.g. CPS-drep-incentive).

[Seomon4u]

Tagging this Triage to introduce at next CIP meeting (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/107) - @Seomon4u you & co-authors are welcome to attend & introduce it yourself, though it's not a detailed review.

Please familiarise yourself (if not already) and perhaps comment on this new CIP submission for potential impact on your problem statement:

• CIP-???? | Optional DRep Compensation #991

Note also there is no guarantee of this getting CPS number 19 - even if it seemed likely it would be accepted as a CPS candidate soon, we would still ask you not to use a number at this stage.

Thank you rphair,
Sebastian is going to present our CPS, can you please give us a link on where to join?
Also will change the number ofc.

[rphair]

thanks @Seomon4u, we'll look forward to your team's presence there... meetings are on Discord and all are open to the public (authors & relevant reviewers are given priority for speaking); the Discord invite link is on this page here, and the pages below it have some important details about the review process: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/wiki

[Seomon4u]

Thank you @rphair we changed the name as requested. Will check out the document too.

Thank you for that suggestion @Ryun1 I will bring it up in the next meeting!

[rphair]

@Seomon thanks for inviting Sebastián's participation in Tuesday's CIP meeting (please tag him to read this since I can't find his GitHub handle).

As he would recall, the editors are ready to give this a CIP number but still have to confirm that this submission is suitable for the CIP process itself as suggested earlier in my #997 (review).

So, as resolved at the meeting, we have to confirm an entirely technical basis for this CPS: rigorously defining it as these two things (likely in succession):

1. a process to collect parameters from the community & governance stakeholders to establish attractive and feasible expectations about incentivisation and to formulate those goals precisely;
2. a result in smart contract or ledger behaviour to implement the chosen strategy... as we all assume at this point, in the form of a CIP that "solves" this CPS.

So this CPS will be admissible as other "audit" type proposals would be if and only if it refers to a technical implementation.

We will therefore have to confirm that the CPS document contains no suggestions that its socially defined goals will have social solutions... which would put it in the domain of "social governance" propositions which instead are being groomed for a separate repository (not CIPs) as tentatively agreed from this point:

• New Category: Governance #937 (comment)

At this time neither @Crypto2099 nor I can verify that your document explains this process (item # 1 of 2 above) in technical terms. The narrative still seems like it could apply to human systems producing a human result: e.g. an organisationally provisioned compensation scheme.

To avoid the potential chaos of people using the CIP process to apply pressure for social, organisational or financial changes, we need to assure this document is only about a technical process and a technical result. If & when that can be established in online review we would be free to confirm this as a CPS candidate.

---

On a separate but important note, as presented by @Ryun1 at the meeting: since "going through the trouble" of doing this for DReps it seems even more sensible to apply the investigative process for other types of incentivisation as well (e.g. Constitutional Committee members, decentralising delegation changes, ...):

• Therefore would you please respond about whether you'd be able to include other "incentivized" domains in your problem statement as well?
• Then we'd have the advantage of a single CPS for Incentivization opening up multiple CIP solutions: one for each of those domains, including the DRep domain that you've already defined.

[rphair]

p.s. to #997 (review) - it was also pointed out in the meeting that IOG has written a preliminary study on such incentives & we therefore resolved that this should definitely be included and perhaps addressed in the CPS itself.

[rphair]

@Seomon4u an incorrect CIP number was applied to the PR title above (colliding with #942) which has caused a cascade of other errors. Please ASAP apply the apparently confirmed number 20 or 0020 everywhere possible... except the branch which if renamed would destroy this PR.

Most importantly that means renaming the directory as requested long ago in #997 (comment) - although now that this is apparently confirmed there's no need to use a semantic name and instead the directory should be renamed ASAP to CIP-0020.

[Martin-AWAgency]

"Thank you all for reading and giving meaningful feedback to our CPS! 👏 🌟

[rphair]

@Seomon4u I'm marking this Waiting for Author — as editors currently understand it, awaiting a rewrite according to the broader scope that's been suggested. FYI this is becoming a popular community subject e.g. in this recent Cardano Forum thread: https://forum.cardano.org/t/should-dreps-be-paid-a-conversation-we-need-to-have/146575

[rphair]

This was added ad hoc to yesterday's CIP meeting agenda, during which @perturbing and I acknowledged that the main feedback from review — the inclusion of other incentivised categories besides DReps — has been well met. We resolved to mark this Last Check for next meeting while we settle 2 issues:

1 - @perturbing argued for stating the "problem" as Participation while @Seomon4u made a persuasive case for keeping the term Incentivization in both the title and text. I was inclined to agree with the author because the suggestions of either 2 terms (goal vs. means) are mainly according to inclination and habit.

In any case these 2 weeks we should continue the discussion in #997 (comment) ... and I believe should merge it as-is unless editors @Ryun1 @perturbing can outline a case where calling it Incentivization might overly constrain CIPs resulting from this CPS... I believe it would not, since the theme of the CPS is to provide incentives.

2 - As even observers at the meeting noticed, and as already pointed out above, this CPS may still have potential to suggest "social" scope: though I believe the document has been adequately constrained so that only technical solutions would be considered reasonable solutions & therefore not create inadmissible CIPs.

Nevertheless this could be worth a double-check before merge especially by @Crypto2099 who also has an active interest in this distinction.

---

In the meantime I'm approving this but would refrain from merging until all other editors have had a chance to say their piece about both the issues above. 🙏